Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-15 Thread Scott Marlowe
2010/1/15 Fernando Hevia : > > >> -Mensaje original- >> De: Pierre Frédéric Caillaud >> Enviado el: Viernes, 15 de Enero de 2010 15:00 >> Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org >> Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup >> >> >>  

Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-15 Thread Fernando Hevia
> -Mensaje original- > De: Pierre Frédéric Caillaud > Enviado el: Viernes, 15 de Enero de 2010 15:00 > Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup > > > No-one has mentioned SSDs yet ?... > The post is about

Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-15 Thread Pierre Frédéric Caillau d
No-one has mentioned SSDs yet ?... -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-15 Thread Matthew Wakeling
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Fernando Hevia wrote: I was wondering if disabling the bbu cache on the RAID 1 array would make any difference. All 256MB would be available for the random I/O on the RAID 10. That would be pretty disastrous, to be honest. The benefit of the cache is not only that it smoot

Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-15 Thread Fernando Hevia
> -Mensaje original- > De: Matthew Wakeling [mailto:matt...@flymine.org] > Enviado el: Viernes, 15 de Enero de 2010 08:21 > Para: Scott Marlowe > CC: Fernando Hevia; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup > > On Thu, 14

Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-15 Thread Fernando Hevia
> -Mensaje original- > De: Greg Smith > >> Fernando Hevia wrote: >> >> I justified my first choice in that WAL writes are >> sequentially and OS pretty much are too, so a RAID 1 probably >> would hold ground against a 12 disc RAID 10 with random writes. >> > > The problem wit

Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-15 Thread Fernando Hevia
> -Mensaje original- > De: Scott Marlowe > > I think your first choice is right. I use the same basic > setup with 147G 15k5 SAS seagate drives and the pg_xlog / OS > partition is almost never close to the same level of > utilization, according to iostat, as the main 12 disk RAID-1

Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-15 Thread Matthew Wakeling
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Scott Marlowe wrote: I've just received this new server: 1 x XEON 5520 Quad Core w/ HT 8 GB RAM 1066 MHz 16 x SATA II Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 3ware 9650SE w/ 256MB BBU 2 discs in RAID 1 for OS + pg_xlog partitioned with ext2. 12 discs in RAID 10 for postgres data, sole par

Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-14 Thread Greg Smith
Fernando Hevia wrote: I justified my first choice in that WAL writes are sequentially and OS pretty much are too, so a RAID 1 probably would hold ground against a 12 disc RAID 10 with random writes. The problem with this theory is that when PostgreSQL does WAL writes and asks to sync the data

Re: [PERFORM] new server I/O setup

2010-01-14 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Fernando Hevia wrote: > Hi all, > > I've just received this new server: > 1 x XEON 5520 Quad Core w/ HT > 8 GB RAM 1066 MHz > 16 x SATA II Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 > 3ware 9650SE w/ 256MB BBU > > It will run an Ubuntu 8.04 LTS Postgres 8.4 dedicated server. Its da